bhaw wrote:And if you want to point out that your opinion of MAF changed because he started playing better (while still talking down on people who held a negative opinion of DB when the team sucked out loud), then instead of being uniformed, you can be reclassified as hypocritical.

Not hypocritical at all. I simply said Fleury stunk in a stretch where the GA was being pushed as the reason to fire Bylsma. Actually dead on. Fluery and Vokoun both started playing better and in a few games of the streak made 30-35 saves. There were games before the streak where they were surrendering 2 bad goals a game, including the big comeback against the Flyers.

I never asked for Fleury to be benched, fired or traded. That would have been uninformed.

The folks who wanted Bylsma fired were reactionary and uninformed. Its not talking down, it is pointing out how extreme and uninformed the whole thread was. The thread was started by a troll and many followed when they were sitting at #2 in the conference and NO GM in the league would have made that move. Simple.

Truth - this exit.

Your definition of uninformed is uninformed. As is you definition of reactionary. But please go on about how you never made reactionary posts about fleury and you knew all. If you want to group all opinions into one pool, you are indeed uninformed of how to create an argument. Fleury wasn't the reason the team was giving up tons of goals, at least the only.

If you can sit he and say the d scheme is the same as 2 months ago, there is nothing else to say. You aren't watching but rather perusing forums for your opinions.

But please tell us more about your totally reasonable opinions on fleury. Massive lol there.

bhaw wrote:And if you want to point out that your opinion of MAF changed because he started playing better (while still talking down on people who held a negative opinion of DB when the team sucked out loud), then instead of being uniformed, you can be reclassified as hypocritical.

This x 1000. Hindsight is 20/20, and in this case it isn't even hindsight as much as a figure of criticism changing his ways.

Exactly. Their style of hockey going back to the tail end of last season was atrocious. The defense was in shambles and guys had no clue where they were supposed to be.

Although, I'm assuming Snapper's opinion is that the undisciplined play and totally losing their cool against Philly into this season was Fleury's fault too.

I guess I'm uninformed though... there was nothing worthy of criticism at the beginning of this season (except Fleury). There were absolutely no coaching issues going on at all. None.

The Snapshot wrote:The thread was started by a troll and many followed when they were sitting at #2 in the conference and NO GM in the league would have made that move. Simple.

Bruce Boudreau wins Presidents trophy, Bruce Boudreau is fired.

The regular season doesn't mean ****.

Devils also did the same thing going into the playoffs a few years ago.

But it never happens. No GM would ever do that.

No "good" GM would have fired Bylsma at that point. Those other instances were different, because there were philosphical differences in NJ that were well documented and the Boudreau firing being referenced is silly, because the GM there is grasping at straws for why his team never wins anything.

Bylsma's Cup win makes his status different. So does the horrific injuries he dealt with in the last 2+ seasons.

Thankfully, we have a GREAT GM who agreed with me. There was never any hint of that move or any indication that there was any change in the outstanding working relationship the two have.

I'm done addressing this because I know I am right that the thread was ludicrous AT THAT TIME. Had that stretch of play continued I would have considered the possibility, but the timing was laughable. I am done defending something so clearly right - especially because only one of the two of you in not on the foe list.....since I'm responding to you I think you can guess which is which.

I know that Shero certainly saw an issue with personnel, hence the addition of 5 veterans.

I am sure that Shero and Bylsma identified areas of weakness within the system that they wanted to play. It was clear that the 3rd and 4th lines needed work. Shero addressed them with a trickle down by adding some top 6 talent instead of getting 4th liners.

He also added a pretty physical Dman as well as a veteran postional Dman.

That is why he is the best in the business and why he wouldn't have jumped the gun and fired Bylsma at that point.

I know that Shero certainly saw an issue with personnel, hence the addition of 5 veterans.

after what a 10 game winning streak?

Since it happened.....obviously, yes.

It happened because Shero could. He had a absurd amount of cap space and loaded up like any GM of any Contender would do. Not because the team was incapable as it was of making a run.

I'm gonna chime in here and say it was both really. Like you said, the regular season doesn't mean anything anymore. Just have to make the playoffs. So, with that in mind, just because the Pens were on a 10 game win streak didn't mean this team was free of flaws. They needed what they needed and addressed it.

Now, they were able to do this because they had all the cap room in the world to play with. Not every team who was a contender did this. If that was the case, everyone would have gotten like 4 dudes to help them. The Pens acquire players using their advanced stats philosophy and they just happened to have the space to load up on said guys.

The Snapshot wrote:The thread was started by a troll and many followed when they were sitting at #2 in the conference and NO GM in the league would have made that move. Simple.

Bruce Boudreau wins Presidents trophy, Bruce Boudreau is fired.

The regular season doesn't mean ****.

Devils also did the same thing going into the playoffs a few years ago.

But it never happens. No GM would ever do that.

No "good" GM would have fired Bylsma at that point. Those other instances were different, because there were philosphical differences in NJ that were well documented and the Boudreau firing being referenced is silly, because the GM there is grasping at straws for why his team never wins anything.

Bylsma's Cup win makes his status different. So does the horrific injuries he dealt with in the last 2+ seasons.

Thankfully, we have a GREAT GM who agreed with me. There was never any hint of that move or any indication that there was any change in the outstanding working relationship the two have.

I'm done addressing this because I know I am right that the thread was ludicrous AT THAT TIME. Had that stretch of play continued I would have considered the possibility, but the timing was laughable. I am done defending something so clearly right - especially because only one of the two of you in not on the foe list.....since I'm responding to you I think you can guess which is which.

That's fine but dismissing all opinions as uninformed is ridiculous and worthy of all vile heat you get from people who know what they are talking about. Unless you want people to throw your constant Fleury bashing back in your face on a consistent basis.

If you want to say you were clearly right, that's your own opinion. I'll try not to generalize your bad opinions as being totally devoid of merit, something you are apparently unable to do.

The Snapshot wrote:The thread was started by a troll and many followed when they were sitting at #2 in the conference and NO GM in the league would have made that move. Simple.

Bruce Boudreau wins Presidents trophy, Bruce Boudreau is fired.

The regular season doesn't mean ****.

Devils also did the same thing going into the playoffs a few years ago.

But it never happens. No GM would ever do that.

No "good" GM would have fired Bylsma at that point. Those other instances were different, because there were philosphical differences in NJ that were well documented and the Boudreau firing being referenced is silly, because the GM there is grasping at straws for why his team never wins anything.

Bylsma's Cup win makes his status different. So does the horrific injuries he dealt with in the last 2+ seasons.

Thankfully, we have a GREAT GM who agreed with me. There was never any hint of that move or any indication that there was any change in the outstanding working relationship the two have.

I'm done addressing this because I know I am right that the thread was ludicrous AT THAT TIME. Had that stretch of play continued I would have considered the possibility, but the timing was laughable. I am done defending something so clearly right - especially because only one of the two of you in not on the foe list.....since I'm responding to you I think you can guess which is which.

That's fine but dismissing all opinions as uninformed is ridiculous and worthy of all vile heat you get from people who know what they are talking about. Unless you want people to throw your constant Fleury bashing back in your face on a consistent basis.

If you want to say you were clearly right, that's your own opinion. I'll try not to generalize your bad opinions as being totally devoid of merit, something you are apparently unable to do.

Fleury at times plays like an AHL goalie who is 20 years old. That is not his best. In general I am very supportive of the team and when the team goes bad it most frequently has to do with one of Fleury's "spells". The WORST I have ever done with respect to Fleury is ask whether or not he is the goalie to backstop the muliple Cup goals of the Crosby/Malkin era or cite him as a bigger reason for post-season failures than Bylsma's coaching. You CANNOT coach goals out of your net when they are weak wrist shots or juicy rebounds. Every stick cannot be controlled defensively.

If Bylsma's team remains reasonably healthy and fails in the Playoffs, it will most likely be at Fleury's feet again. Then Bylsma will be fired most-likely and there isn't much to argue about. I happen to backed by just about every knowledgable NHL analyst, ex-player, ex-coach, ex-GM who when asked about Pittsburgh's chances at this point all go to "only if Fleury falters". It is clear that Shero wanted to address a backup plan by having Vokoun at least be an option.

Nothing controversial, and nothing personal, but when someone wants to fire a coach sitting 2nd in the Conference who has already been dealing with key injuries - and then has the team go on a winning streak and shoot to the top of the conference - it makes that position goofy.

My position on Fleury was that he had to play better, and he has, and look what's happened since. No more leaky goals for some time, and he has stolen some games as well. That is his job as a former Number One overall draft pick. He is supposed to be a cornerstone goaltender for a hopeful mini-dynasty, and he is not always up to it.

Another reason that Fleury comes up so often in my posts is that folks like you force me continually clarify my position on him, yet never offer any real facts to prove it to be incorrect. I actually have done NOTHING but post positive things about Fleury since about the time he regained his form, yet still he is brought up as a way to distract from the ignorance of the Fire Bylsma thread.

The Snapshot wrote:Another reason that Fleury comes up so often in my posts is that folks like you force me continually clarify my position on him, yet never offer any real facts to prove it to be incorrect. I actually have done NOTHING but post positive things about Fleury since about the time he regained his form, yet still he is brought up as a way to distract from the ignorance of the Fire Bylsma thread.

Yet that same reasoning is used to put the people down who posted at the same time about Bylsma? Ok, makes sense. You are allowed to change your position but not be "uninformed" about your "correct" opinions of MAF. However, someone like me is "uninformed" because I posted at the same time about DB and have not said anything bad about him since he corrected his issues. Timing is exactly the same. Pattern is the same. But my opinions are lesser?

SolidSnake wrote:I'm guessing that he also told Shero to get Iginla, Morrow, Murray and Jokinen because he's always right.

I only said I am right about the fact that Bylsma being fired at that time would have been reactionary and uninformed. The position that this team is in and the injuries they have battled to get here are all the evidence I need.

Everyone can chime in all you want. I don't think the brush I'm painted with is warranted, but if it will make folks happier I can back up the statements with IMHO instead of just being right.

I have had three themes this season.

1) Tangradi sucks, did not deserve the shot he was given and he would never suceed even with reigning MYP gifted to him as his center - Check.

2) Bylsma was not the problem - Check

3) Fleury needs to gain consistency and perform in the Playoffs - TBD

I am not a Penguin basher. I am not a pessimist. I actually believe Fleury should be better because he has the tools and has shown the ability in long stretches of his career.

I DID NOT start the Fire Bylsma thread, start any TK sucks, JAMES NEAL is and AHLr or any of the other inane stuff I read on here.

I actually more often post positive things until I am dragged back into this same tired defense of my "Fleury bashing". Tiresome.

sil wrote:Wouldn't #2 also be TBD? How can that be settled yet when we haven't played a postseason game yet?

Because he's right and anyone who thinks otherwise is uninformed. He says being called a Fleury basher is tiresome. So is his persistence that his opinion is more informed than anyone else who believed Bylsma has a **** system in place (which he did).

Irony... playing victim then doing the same thing you are playing victim to to others.

The Snapshot wrote:Another reason that Fleury comes up so often in my posts is that folks like you force me continually clarify my position on him, yet never offer any real facts to prove it to be incorrect. I actually have done NOTHING but post positive things about Fleury since about the time he regained his form, yet still he is brought up as a way to distract from the ignorance of the Fire Bylsma thread.

Yet that same reasoning is used to put the people down who posted at the same time about Bylsma? Ok, makes sense. You are allowed to change your position but not be "uninformed" about your "correct" opinions of MAF. However, someone like me is "uninformed" because I posted at the same time about DB and have not said anything bad about him since he corrected his issues. Timing is exactly the same. Pattern is the same. But my opinions are lesser?

Do you not see the problem? Stop being ignorant.

I never asked for Fleury to be traded or fired. The Thread was not "Bylsma needs to improve". Was it? Ignorant isn't a word that upsets me when it is a crutch to cover inaccuracies.

You seem to be a little regret in having taken part in the Fire Bylsma thread and are lashing out at me. I have no such cover-up reaquired on my Fleury thoughts. Fleury struggles with consistency and always has. The issue at that time was leaky goals, not the coach. The kind of goaltending the Pens were getting at the time is what Philly and Tampa have gotten all year. One's coach WAS fired and the other may well be. Had Fleury not gotten his game back and it continued for another 10-12 games the Pens would not have remained at the top of the conference and alternatives would have been considered, including Bylsma's job.

The Snapshot wrote:Another reason that Fleury comes up so often in my posts is that folks like you force me continually clarify my position on him, yet never offer any real facts to prove it to be incorrect. I actually have done NOTHING but post positive things about Fleury since about the time he regained his form, yet still he is brought up as a way to distract from the ignorance of the Fire Bylsma thread.

Yet that same reasoning is used to put the people down who posted at the same time about Bylsma? Ok, makes sense. You are allowed to change your position but not be "uninformed" about your "correct" opinions of MAF. However, someone like me is "uninformed" because I posted at the same time about DB and have not said anything bad about him since he corrected his issues. Timing is exactly the same. Pattern is the same. But my opinions are lesser?

Do you not see the problem? Stop being ignorant.

I never asked for Fleury to be traded or fired. The Thread was not "Bylsma needs to improve". Was it? Ignorant isn't a word that upsets me when it is a crutch to cover inaccuracies.

You seem to be a little regret in having taken part in the Fire Bylsma thread and are lashing out at me. I have no such cover-up reaquired on my Fleury thoughts. Fleury struggles with consistency and always has. The issue at that time was leaky goals, not the coach. The kind of goaltending the Pens were getting at the time is what Philly and Tampa have gotten all year. One's coach WAS fired and the other may well be. Had Fleury not gotten his game back and it continued for another 10-12 games the Pens would not have remained at the top of the conference and alternatives would have been considered, including Bylsma's job.

Sorry if that hurts your feelings.

I don't regret it at all. At the time, he had a great team playing like crap. I sited many areas where the team was absolutely struggling due to an extremely poor team defense scheme. You're being extremely hypocritical in your stance, and it appears everyone sees that.

Your insistence that Fleury was the only problem shows you are just intentionally being dense.

sil wrote:Wouldn't #2 also be TBD? How can that be settled yet when we haven't played a postseason game yet?

I've already said the Bylsma is out of chances as of this post season. That point was that Bylsma was not the problem at the time that Fire Bylsma thread was started by a Troll.

Been on here since the earliest days on this board and I am done with defending myself as being arrogant or whatever. I've been wrong in the past and will be again, but not on the Bylsma issue at that time or on the fact that Fleury struggles with consistency.